DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 8 August 2025 in response to the non-final Office action mailed 8 April 2025, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1 and 5-11 are pending, wherein: claims 1, 5 and 7 have been amended, claims 6, 8-9 and 11 are as previously presented, claim 10 is as originally filed, and claims 2-4 have been cancelled by this amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2025 and 8 August 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 8 April 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levandoski et al. (US 9,493,682) in view of Miyasaka et al. (US PGPub 2013/0298398).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9-10, Levandoski teaches two-part curable compositions, for use with electrically conductive components (abstract; col 1 ln 5-10), a first part and a second part (col 1 ln 35-50). Levandoski teaches the first part comprises i) at least one (meth)acrylate monomer, ii) an electrically conductive component, iii) an acid catalyst, iv) a free radical initiator, and v) a free radical stabilizer (col 1 ln 35-50; col 2 ln 52 to col 7 ln 48).
Levandoski teaches the ii) electrically conductive component includes metallic fillers, including aluminum, copper, etc., conductive pigments., graphites, etc. (col 4 ln 5-17)(instant thermally conductive fillers). Levandoski also teaches additional fillers may be included such as silicas, fumed silicas, hydroxides of aluminum, magnesium, etc., (col 7 ln 12-23)(instant thermally conductive fillers). Levandoski further teaches the v) free radical stabilizers include compounds of catechol, pyrogallol, butylated hydroxytoluene, t-butyl catechol, p-methoxy phenol, t-butyl-hydroquinone, etc. (col 7 ln 24-37) (instant phenol-based oxidation inhibitor (claims 9-10)).
Levandoski teaches the i) at least one (meth)acrylate monomer includes di-functional (meth)acrylate monomers of structure (II) (i.e. a polyoxyalkylene chain) where R2 is hydrogen or an alkyl of 1-4 carbons, R3 is hydrogen or hydroxy, m is an integer of 1-8 or higher, n is an integer of at 1-20 or more, and v is 0 or 1 (col 3 ln 35 to col 4 ln 4) (noting that selection of R2 = H, m=1, v=0, for any value of n equating to polyethylene oxide structure = instant formula (2); and selection of R2 = H and alkyl of 1 carbon, m=1, and v=0, for any value of n equating to polypropylene oxide structure = instant formula (3)).
As noted Levandoski teaches the i) at least one (meth)acrylate monomer includes di-functional (meth)acrylate monomers of structure (II) having a polyoxyalkylene chain (see above). Levandoski does not specifically teach a copolymer of instant structure (1) having units (instant R13) of formulas (2) and (3) as claimed, which is further a random copolymer chain (claim 5). However, Miyaska teaches similar curable compositions comprising a polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylate polymerizable monomer component ([0054]-[0057]; [0064]). Miyasaka teaches it is desirable, from the point of flexibility and resolution of cured products thereof, that the component comprises (poly)oxyethylene chains and (poly)oxypropylene chains, present in block or random form ([0065]), preferably having formulas (3), (4) or (5), where the ‘r’s are integers of 1-30 and the ‘s’s are integers of 1-30 ([0068]-[0071]). Miyasaka and Levandoski are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising a polymerizable polyoxyalkylene di(meth)acrylate monomer component, applicable to electronic end-uses. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the copolymer polyoxyalkylene chain di(meth)acrylates of Miyasaka as the polyoxyalkylene chain containing di-(meth)acrylate monomers of Levandoski and would have been motivated to do so as Miyasaka teaches such compounds improve flexibility of the cured products ([0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Levandoski in view of Miyasaka render obvious the curable composition as set forth above. As noted Miyasaka teaches that the ‘r’s and ‘s’s values are from 1-30 where the total number of each EO/PO repeat in the di(meth)acrylate can be 30 ([0068]-[0070]). Miyasaka does not specifically teach a molecular weight of 5000 or more. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the value of n to obtain desired molecular weight and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a curable composition having the desired resolution, adhesiveness, shape and flexibility ([0064]; [0068]-[0070]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claim 7, Levandoski in view of Miyasaka render obvious the curable composition as set forth above and as noted teaches the value of n of at least 1, including 20 or more (col 4 ln 3) which is readable over 100 or more as claimed. Further, Miyasaka teaches each of the EO/PO units can have upwards of 30 repeats and teaches structures (3) and (4) resulting in 90 repeats. Although Miyasaka teaches 90 repeats and not 100 repeats, it is the examiner’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Levandoski in view of Miyasaka render obvious the curable compositions as set forth above. While neither Levandoski nor Miyasaka specifically teaches the viscosity of the di(meth)acrylate monomers/compounds, Miyaksaka teaches compounds readable over the claimed structure (1) being a copolymer having units of instant formulas (2) and (3), including EO and PO units having repeats of 1-30 each (see above). The instant specification states that such compounds will have the claimed viscosity property (instant original specification page 11). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 11, Levandoski in view of Miyasaka renders obvious the curable compositions as set forth above and Levandoski further teaches their application to a variety of end-uses including electronic, automotive, and material-sensitive applications, such as portable electronics, large electronics, etc. (col 1 ln 54 to col 2 ln 8). Levandoski teaches the curable composition is applied to one or more parts of a device/substrates which is then cured either at room temperature or elevated temperatures (instant heat source; instant thermal contact).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
C) Claims 1, 5-8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/546197 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties, and further comprising thermally conductive filler(s) and further substantially similar articles thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
D) Claims 1, 5-8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/546187 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties, and further comprising thermally conductive filler(s) and further substantially similar articles thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
E) Claims 1 and 5-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 17/779130 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties, and further comprising thermally conductive filler(s) and further substantially similar articles thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
F) Claims 1 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 17/779132 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2009120826 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations). The claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties. The claims of the copending application differ in that they are silent as to a thermally conductive filler. However, Hayashi teaches it is well known to include fillers having thermal conductivity in curable adhesive compositions comprising a polymerizable monomer having ethylenic carbon-carbon bonds in order to obtain a cured product with sufficient thermal conductivity (pg9). Hayashi and the copending application are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable di(meth)acrylate compounds having polyoxyalkylene chains. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include thermally conductive fillers in the claims of the copending application and would have been motivated to do so as Hayashi teaches it is well-known to do so.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
G) Claims 1 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7 and 9-18 of copending Application No. 17/779131 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2009120826 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations). The claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties. The claims of the copending application differ in that they are silent as to a thermally conductive filler. However, Hayashi teaches it is well known to include fillers having thermal conductivity in curable adhesive compositions comprising a polymerizable monomer having ethylenic carbon-carbon bonds in order to obtain a cured product with sufficient thermal conductivity (pg9). Hayashi and the copending application are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable di(meth)acrylate compounds having polyoxyalkylene chains. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include thermally conductive fillers in the claims of the copending application and would have been motivated to do so as Hayashi teaches it is well-known to do so.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
H) Claims 1 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/686436 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2009120826 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations). The claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties. The claims of the copending application differ in that they are silent as to a thermally conductive filler. However, Hayashi teaches it is well known to include fillers having thermal conductivity in curable adhesive compositions comprising a polymerizable monomer having ethylenic carbon-carbon bonds in order to obtain a cured product with sufficient thermal conductivity (pg9). Hayashi and the copending application are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable di(meth)acrylate compounds having polyoxyalkylene chains. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include thermally conductive fillers in the claims of the copending application and would have been motivated to do so as Hayashi teaches it is well-known to do so.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
I) Claims 1 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/258492 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2009120826 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations). The claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties. The claims of the copending application differ in that they are silent as to a thermally conductive filler. However, Hayashi teaches it is well known to include fillers having thermal conductivity in curable adhesive compositions comprising a polymerizable monomer having ethylenic carbon-carbon bonds in order to obtain a cured product with sufficient thermal conductivity (pg9). Hayashi and the copending application are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable di(meth)acrylate compounds having polyoxyalkylene chains. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include thermally conductive fillers in the claims of the copending application and would have been motivated to do so as Hayashi teaches it is well-known to do so.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
J) Claims 1, 5-8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/023151 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2009120826 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations). The claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar curable compositions comprising substantially similar compound(s) of instant formula (1) comprising a polyoxyalkylene chain, having substantially similar properties, and further similar articles thereof. The claims of the copending application differ in that they are silent as to a thermally conductive filler. However, Hayashi teaches it is well known to include fillers having thermal conductivity in curable adhesive compositions comprising a polymerizable monomer having ethylenic carbon-carbon bonds in order to obtain a cured product with sufficient thermal conductivity (pg9). Hayashi and the copending application are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable di(meth)acrylate compounds having polyoxyalkylene chains. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include thermally conductive fillers in the claims of the copending application and would have been motivated to do so as Hayashi teaches it is well-known to do so.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-11 as anticipated by Hayashi (JP 2009120826 A) is withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 and 7-11 as anticipated by Levandoski (US 9,493,682) and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 2-3 and 6 as unpatentable over Levandoski are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 4-5 as unpatentable over Levandoski (US 9,493,682) in view of Miyasaka (US PGPub 2013/0298398) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 6-9) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Levandoski and Miyasaka are distinct and non-combinable references. This is not found persuasive. Levandoski and Miyasaka are held analogous as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor namely curable compositions comprising polymerizable polyoxyalkylene di(meth)acrylate monomer components, which are suitable for use in electronic end-use applications, notably for their adhesiveness and shape properties. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art having been appraised of the teachings of Levandoski that polyoxyalkylene di(meth)acrylates are the desired reactive monomer suitable for use in obtaining adhesive compositions for use in electronic devices, would have found it obvious to look to the teachings of Miyasaka for such a polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylate and arrive at the instant invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Further noting Miyasaka teaches the polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylate component is responsible for achieving satisfactory adhesiveness, flexibility, resolution and shape ([0064]; [0068]-[0070]) and that Levandoski teaches, and is concerned with, adhesiveness, structural integrity and shape (col 1 ln 24-25; col 9 ln 25-45).
Applicant argues that the teaching of flexibility in Miyasaka is an “orphan term” stated only once, is a term which one of ordinary skill would not understand what Miyasaka meant, and further would not understand how such would be an advantage to Levandoski. Firstly, the teaching by Miyasaka of “flexibility” is not an ‘orphan term’, as alleged by Applicant, as the phrase stands supported on its own i.e. flexibility of the cured product is improved. One of ordinary skill would understand from context, if not the outright statement, of Miyaska that polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylates are preferred from the viewpoint of improved resolution and flexibility of the cured film ([0068]). Further there is no requirement, beyond once, for the number of times an advantage must be stated by a reference in order to rely on said express teaching. Secondly, selection of the copolymer polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylates) of Miyasaka as the polyoxyalkylene di(meth)acrylates of Levandoski would be advantageous for the reasons discussed above (see also rejection above), namely achieving satisfactory adhesiveness, flexibility, resolution and/or shape.
It is also noted that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a combination of references and that the reason or motivation to modify the prior art reference(s) may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. Furthermore, it is noted that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Appellant. The motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor, rather than the specific problem solved by the invention (see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ 2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamore Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings; see also In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144 and 2141.01).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections of A) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/861585, B) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/861584, C) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/546197, D) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/546187, and E) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/779130, are withdrawn with respect to A) and B) as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments and are maintained with respect to C)-E). Further the provisional nonstatutory obviousness double patenting rejections of F) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/779132 in view of Hayashi, G) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/779131 in view of Hayashi, H) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/686436 in view of Hayashi, I) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/258492 (previously misidentified as 18/686436 due to typographical error) in view of Hayashi, and J) the cited claims as held unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/023151 in view of Hayashi, are maintained. Applicant’s acknowledgment of the rejections and request to hold such in abeyance is noted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767